Download Ethical Systems

Theory of Formalism
Mag-isa, Von Justin
Mallare, Tristan Howell
Medina, Alethea Mae
Medina, Denver
Mendoza, Danver
Narciso, Fiona
Ogilvie, Jeremy James
Ong, Kim Thomas
Onate, Claudette Miracel
Perez, Roi Vincent
Outline
I. Ethical Systems
II.Definition and Examples
III.History
IV.Form and Content
V. Kant’s Ethics
VI.Intrinsic Values
VII.Harry J. Gensler’s Theory of
Formal Ethics
Outline
VIII. Categorical Imperative
IX. Ethical Formalism vs. Other
Ethical Theories
X. Pros and Cons
XI. Theory of Formalism in
Engineering Ethics
XII. History of Engineering Ethics
XIII. Criticisms on Ethical
Formalism
XIV. Formalism: Another Approach
Ethical Systems
What are Ethical Systems?
-source of moral beliefs
-the underlying premises from
which we make judgments
-they are beyond argument
Baelz(1977)
-they are prescriptive; certain
behavior is demanded or
proscribed
-they are authoritative
-logically impartial or
universal
-they are not self-serving
Basic Types of Ethical
Systems
• Deontological
-concerned with the inherent nature
of the act being judged.
-an act which is inherently good,
even if results in bad consequences
is still a good act.
• Teleological
-judges the consequences of the act
-a bad act resulting in good
consequences would be defined as
good. (end justifies the means)
DEFINITION OF FORMALISM
• A type of ethical theory which
defines moral judgments in terms
of logical form rather than its
content.
• Formalism is the view that
theoretical information about an
object, or practical guidance
about how to treat it, are to be
derived from attention to its
form rather than its matter or
content.
When can you say its
formal?
It should focus on the
structural and functional
properties that instances of a
type have in common and derives
its conclusions from those
alone.
HISTORY
• Idea originated in ancient Greek
metaphysics
• Plato (c. 430-347 B.C.) argued
that to understand an object is
to grasp the forms in which it
“participates.”
• Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
developed this theory by
contrasting the form of an object
to its matter.
IMMANUEL KANT
(1724-1804)
IMMANUEL KANT
• Father of formalist thinking
• One of the most influential
philosophers in the history of
western philosophy
• In the 18th century, argued that
right and wrong are founded on
duty
• The concept of “motive” is the
most important factor in
determining what is ethical
• Works on ethics:
– The Foundation of the Metaphysics of
Morals (1785)
– The Critique of Practical Reasoning
(1787)
• He is the primary proponent in
history of what is called
deontological ethics
• "Act only according to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal
law."
FORM AND CONTENT
• The form is the "shape“ of the
thing, a container without
content.
• The content is the specific
manifestation of the form.
FORM AND CONTENT
• Ethical formalism rejects the
concern with actual moral acts
and concentrates instead on the
fundamental sources of moral
goodness regardless of their
application.
• The content of any moral action
has no meaning.
KANT’S ETHICS
• Kant's ethics is called
formalism because it focuses on
the form or structure of a
moral judgment.
• A truly moral action is one
that comes from the free will.
• Ethical action deriving from
the will is truly good because
it is both free and universal.
KANT’S ETHICS
• Universality becomes the ground
of morality because it does not
take into consideration any
specific interest.
• The very concept of
universality means that real
moral rules must apply to
everyone equally.
FORMALISM
• Kant's approach to ethics begins
with an analysis of "ulterior
motives.“
• Kant then proceeds to analyze
the acts of so-called "Good
Samaritans" to see why they do
good things for complete
strangers.
– "Under what circumstances will
people sincerely do good with no
expectation of benefit?"
Good Will in Formalism
How do we define
Formalism?
Good Will In Formalism
• Kant explains that the only thing good
in itself is the “Good will.”
• “A good will is not because of what it
effects or accomplishes---because of its
fitness for attaining some proposed end:
it is good through its willing alone---- that is, good in itself.”
• Therefore, doing something because you
think is good doesn’t make the act good.
It all matters on the attitude you have
towards it.
Let’s say you’re at your mother’s house and she
asks you to wash her car for her. you either:
a) Wash your mother’s car because it makes her
happy and you care about her so you do it
with no complaints.
b) Wash your mother’s car simply because you
like washing cars.
c) Reluctantly wash your mother’s car even
though you have a ton of things to do.
Which one of these, according to Kant, are
morally correct and are done out of sheer good
will?
• According to Kant doing something out of
good will means doing it strictly for
the sake of duty. Meaning, you do the
right thing because it is your “job” to
do so.
• As soon as you are doing an act out of
the fact that you are inclined to do so
because of some reward, or pleasure that
is involved then that act will not
account for your Good Will.
• Kantian Ethics is straight to the point
duty inspired. There is no other emotion
that should be felt other then “I must
do this because it is my duty.”
• That is why in our example, C is the
only right answer — for Kant that is.
•
Even though A seems to look good on
the outside, if you get joy our of
helping your mother then you are also
inclined to do so.
• If B, then you are also inclined to
do so out of the pleasure you will
get from washing the car!
INTRINSIC VALUE
• Ethical formalism holds that the
source and ground of ethical laws
contains their value.
• For Kant, a truly moral action is one
that comes from the free will.
• Ethical action deriving from the will
is truly good because it is both free
and universal.
INTRINSIC VALUE
• Kant's famed ethical formalism shows the
source of moral action through a will
that is totally free from constraint,
and hence, necessarily totally
universal.
• All rational human beings are capable of
this sort of action. Since this is the
source of moral goodness, and all human
beings can perform it, then each
rational person is the source of moral
good.
Harry J. Gensler's
Theory of formal ethics
The Golden Rule
“Treat others as you want
to be treated”
• K. Know: “How would my action affect
others?”
• I. Imagine: “What would it be like
to have this done to me in the same
situation?”
• T. Test for consistency: “Am I now
willing that if I were in the same
situation then this be done to me?”
• A. Act toward others only as you’re
willing to be treated in the same
situation.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Two ethical imperatives that guide
our actions:
1. What is best for everyone
equally?
2. What preserves the needs of
each individual equally?
– This relates to Kant’s Categorical
Imperatives – Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
– Act so as to treat people always
as ends in themselves, never as
mere means.
– Kant’s two basic assumptions:
a. Only human beings are capable
of rationality
b. As rational, human beings
are autonomous
HOW TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
• Kant divides the duties imposed by
this formulation into two subsets:
• Perfect Duty
– According to his reasoning, we first
have a perfect duty not to act by maxims
that result in logical contradictions
when we attempt to universalize them.
– in general, perfect duties are those
that are blameworthy if not met, as they
are a basic required duty for a human
being.
HOW TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
• Imperfect duty
– which are still based on pure
reason, but which allow for desires
in how they are carried out in
practice. because these depend
somewhat on the subjective
preferences of humankind, this duty
is not as strong as perfect duty,
but is still morally binding.
– you do not attract blame should you
not complete an imperfect duty but
you shall receive praise for it
should you compete it.
HOW TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
1. Act only
which you
will that
universal
on that maxim through
can at the same time
it should become a
law.
HOW TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
2. Act in such a way that you always
treat humanity, including yourself
and others, as an end in itself, and
never as a means to an end
HOW TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
3. Act as if you were a
lawmaking member of a kingdom
of end.
Ethical Formalism
VS
Other Ethical Theories
Ethical Formalism
• an ethical theory that defines
morals based off of logic and
reason
• Ethical formalism is "considered
as an absolutist system, if
something is wrong, it is wrong
all the time" (Pollock, 2004).
Just the same, if something is
right, it is then right all the
time.
Ethical Formalism
• for an action to be moral, it is not
sufficient that you do the right
thing -- you must also do it from the
right maxim (basis for action)
• With its greater emphasis on logic
over content, the laws themselves are
more important than judging what
actions are humanitarian
• the German philosopher Kant was often
criticized for his attempts at
deriving concrete moral duties based
on "universal laws”
Consequentialism
• Deals with the consequences of
actions rather than with their
absolute morality
• The dominant form of
consequentialism is
utilitarianism
• Formalism focuses on individual
rights, where consequentialism
focuses on the common good.
Consequentialism
According to Kant there are several
problems with consequentialism:
 According to the consequentialist, no
act (no matter how evil or cruel) is
right or wrong in itself
 If we are already inclined to do an
act because we naturally seek to
produce good consequences (e.g.,
pleasure, happiness), then we are not
acting freely and therefore not
morally responsibly
Consequentialism
According to Kant there are several
problems with consequentialism:
 Because of differences in their
experiences and backgrounds,
people differ as to what are good
consequences; therefore, we can
never achieve agreement on the
end of moral behavior or on an
ultimate criterion for making
such decisions
Formalism VS
Consequentialism
Example:
A manager who refused to dump
toxic waste outside his plant
out of fear of being fired or
even out of the desire to
promote good community
relations, would not be acting
out of a true sense of duty.
Formalism VS
Consequentialism
According to Kant, what would be
(ethically) for the manager to ask
himself/herself
(a)whether he/she could support
such dumping as a universal
practice, or
(b)whether in using the local
community as a "sink" he/she was
treating its citizens as mere
means.
Example
Consequentialism
Deontology
Virtue Theory
Mill's utilitarianism
Kantian ethics
Aristotle's moral theory
An action is right if An action is right if it is
An action is right if
Abstract
it is in accordance what a virtuous agent
it promotes the
Description
with a moral rule or
would do in the
best consequences.
principle.
circumstances.
A virtuous agent is one
The best
who acts virtuously, that
consequences are A moral rule is one is, one who has and
More Concrete
those in which
that is required by exercises the virtues. A
Specification
happiness is
rationality.
virtue is a character trait
maximized.
a human being needs to
flourish or live well.
Consequentialism
Deontology
Virtue Ethics
Example
Utilitarianism
Kantianism
Aristotelianism
Model of Practical
Reasoning
means-ends reasoning: how do I
get what I want/what's good?
How do I determine what's
rational?
What habits should I develop?
will & reason + desires
will & reason (desires are thought
of as outside forces with the
potential to thwart rationality)
Will & reason + desires +
character traits
Rationality
getting what you want
doing what reason requires (at a
having the kinds of desires which
minimum, not having inconsistent
reason determines are best
or self-contradictory policies)
Primary Object
of Evaluation
consequences (states of affairs)
Personal Identity (What
is essential to the self?)
The Good
The Right
virtue
acts
people (agents)
right action itself (? or possibly
whatever results from the actions
(for most consequentialists,
states of affairs brought about by
of good
maximum happiness or something right action? or states of affairs in
people? happiness? acquisition
similar)
which people who act rightly are
of goods internal to practices?
rewarded?)
the sort of thing a virtuous person
actions that maximize the good
BASIC NOTION
would do in the situation
being disposed to maximize utility
(for simple versions of
(but may be analyzed, e.g. as
positive attitude toward doing
consequentialism, there will be just
those dispositions necessary for
one's moral duty(?)
one big virtue; more complex
the attainment of happiness)
versions might have many)
Kant’s Ethical Theory
• Pros
– Consistency
– Absolute
– Objective
• Cons
– Possible
Conflict of
Rules
– Consequences
– Moral Law
THEORY OF FORMALISM IN
ENGINEERING ETHICS
Engineering Ethics
• The field of applied ethics and system
of moral principles that apply to the
practice of engineering.
•The field examines and sets the
obligations by engineers to society, to
their clients ,and to the profession.
• As a scholarly discipline, it is closely
related to subjects such as the
philosophy of science, the philosophy of
engineering, and the ethics of
technology.
HISTORY OF ENGINEERING
ETHICS
• In the early 19th century, ethics was viewed
as a personal rather than a broad
professional concern
• In the late 19th century, there had been
series of significant structural failures,
notably the Ashtabula River Railroad
Disaster(1876), Tay Bridge Disaster(1879),
and the Quebec Bridge collapse(1907) as well
as the Boston molasses disaster(1919)
• These had a profound effect on engineers and
forced the profession to confront
shortcomings in technical and construction
practice, as well as ethical standards
• The formal codes of ethics for professional
engineers was developed in 1912
CRITICISMS OF ETHICAL
FORMALISM
 It does not provide guidance for
resolving conflicting duties.
 It can be used to justify a position
after it has been adopted, but it may
give little help in forming a position.
 It might not apply to extreme
circumstances.
• If an action is wrong, it is always
wrong.
CRITICISMS OF ETHICAL
FORMALISM
The wording of maxims is critical
in ethical formalism and could
lead to abuse and confusion
Lies vs Untruths
CRITICISMS OF ETHICAL
FORMALISM
Ethical Formalism does not provide
guidance for resolving conflicting
duties.
CRITICISMS OF ETHICAL
FORMALISM
Formalism might not apply to extreme
circumstances. If an action is WRONG, it
is ALWAYS WRONG. Regardless of the good
circumstances that might result.
Formalism: Another
Approach
The Situation
Four police officers were tried by
the court in this case and were
acquitted of all charges although
they gunned down the individual
(Dialo).
It may have been evident
to jurors that their original motive
or intent was to protect their lives
and the lives of those present when
Dialo turned his back and reached
for his back pocket (wallet).
This conclusion may have been
determined through the ethical
formalism system which justifies
the officers’ actions based on
their non-malicious intent. This
theory, in fact, may be
contradicting if the victim’s
rights are carelessly ignored
through the process of
consideration of only the
officer’s individual rights and
if in justification of the
officers.
THE FRIENDZONE
FORMALISM: IN SIMPLE
LIFE SITUATIONS
Thank you for listening!
Any Questions?